> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Derbyshire
> >...don't expect a speed improvement beyond the obvious boost to
> >500MHz (and faster once .18 fabs come online).
>
> Fabs? What are those? I found a fabs in my float.h once, never did see it
> again. I think it was for finding absolute values. :-)
>
> I guess I have to make a guess here. A .18 fab is...
>
> * A nasty hypervelocity rifle with small caliber but potent slugs,
> hopefully in a Quake type game and not being manufactured in a
> black market weapons factory in the Middle East.
> * A version of a program. A very very very very beta version.
> * A very small something-or-other with which you something-or-other
> your something-or-other in order to achieve something-or-other.
>
> Which of these is correct? :-)
Argh! :-)
None are correct...heh.
Short for fabrication plant. Basically, every time they shrink the pesky
things, they have to invent a whole new technology to do it. :-) And that
means time and money.
Usually, they can convert one plant over, but they can't convert 'em all
because they need to keep making current chips as well, so they'll make a
new plant or add-on to an existing one.
Then there are the different yields. By increasing the disc size they use
to cut the silicon, you can get more chips on one die, increasing yield.
What are they using now...18" dies or something? You can fit a lot of
PIII's on that.
Anyway, I think the current PIII's will be at the same level as the PII's,
but when they move to 0.18 micron, the trace width, you can get faster
speeds.
The problem with speeds are that with resistance, when you apply a square
wave to it, it doesn't change instantly. Were this not a text based forum,
I could do a picture, but suffice to say that you get a gradual increase
going from logical 0 to logical 1 (the PIII uses 1.8 volt methinks, so
you're going from 0V to 1.8V).
The clock signal changes like that every 2ns at 500MHz. The clock signal
must barely be able to get up to 1.8V in that time, though reducing the
voltage is a good way to help, as well as decreasing power consumption.
By making the traces smaller, you get less resistance and you can apply a
faster clock without screwing up timing signals.
The talk about "copper" is because Intel, as do most chip makers, use
aluminum traces. By going to copper you'll reduce the resistance even more,
even with the same trace lengths/widths, and you can go faster that way.
It's just plain voodoo I'm telling ya. :-)
Some chipmakers use copper now to get faster speeds...
IBM uses copper in some of it's ASIC (application specific integrated
circuit) using .16 micron technology. Those bad boys are fast...up to
800MHz. And I think IBM fabs some PowerPC's using copper, but curiously
those are running around 400MHz.
Intel says they can keep using aluminum up to about .13 micron width at
which time aluminum just don't get much smaller. So then they'll go to
copper, and I can gaurantee they're already doing research with copper,
thanks to what an anonymous Intel folk shared with me recently.
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
